The denier and the doubter would then be released from a stigma-to the practical unbeliever would be transferred the odium that justly attaches to embodied falsehood. The people of whom I am about to write would object, some of them, to being styled 'unbelievers '-others of them, to being styled Anti-christians.' Rationalism' I do not concede. To avoid periphrasis, therefore, I must apply a conventional term with a disclaimer of offensive intentions.

One cannot walk about London open-eyed, without observing announcements of Sunday evening lectures on various topics, not infrequently religious; and sometimes in a coffee-house window may be read the notice, A Theological Discussion here on Sunday evenings.' In the larger advertisements, the name of Mr. G. Jacob Holyoake will pretty regularly appear. Perhaps in the same connexion will be found a list of publications by that gentleman. Inquiry would elicit the fact that Mr. Holyoake is the most popular of these lecturers-is also the editor of a periodical (the Reasoner '), which may be regarded as the organ of his party-is the founder of one or two organizations avowedly antagonistic to Christianity-and has the reputation, among Christians themselves, of superior ability, purity of life, and invincible courtesy in discussion. I may add, of my own knowledge, that among political and social reformers, Mr. Holyoake is a self-appointed but unassuming moderator: no less decided in opinion and bold in speech than any, he is ever chiding the violent, counselling the ardent, and stimulating the sluggish.

With the reputation alluded to, the Rev. H. Townley did himself no dishonour in consenting to publicly discuss with Mr. Holyoake, on a recent occasion, the fundamental thesis- Is there sufficient proof of the existence of a God?' That discussion originated, I believe, at the instance of a gentleman of Islington, who had frequently engaged in personal controversies with Mr. Holyoake's disciples in that neighbourhood. A verbatim report of the discussion has been printed,* and is attracting considerable attention. The controvertialists appear to have conducted their respective cases, through two nights' debate, with admirable temper. For myself, I could wish that Mr. Townley had abstained, in his opening speech, from reading a letter from a Mr. Henry Knight, avowing his conversion from Atheism to orthodox Christianity; and, adding an expression of the joy it would give him to see his present opponent likewise renouncing his opinions. It is the vice of theologians that they suffer anxiety to proselytize to disturb the passionless pursuit of truth; and it is not a likely method to convert a man, that of audibly praying over him. Mr. Holyoake's response to this part of his opponent's address, and to the citation

Report of a Public Discussion, carried on by Henry Townley, formerly Missionary to Calcutta, and late Minister of Bishopsgate Chapel, London, and George Jacob Holyoake, Editor of the Reasoner,' &c. &c., in the Scientific Institution, John-street, Fitzroy-square, London, on the Question-'Is there sufficient Proof of the Existence of a God; that is, of a Being distinct from Nature?' Edited, with Notes and an Appendix, by Henry Townley; and a Preface, by James Bennett, D.D. London: Ward and Co.

of some lofty names on the side of Theism, was in these solemn sentences:

'I am as much concerned as this reverend gentleman can be, as to what shall be the issue of my own condition in the future; I am as much concerned in the solution of this question as he is himself; and I believe that the views I entertain, or that any of us may entertain, conscientiously, will be our justification in that issue, if we should come to want justification. When we pass through the inexorable gates of the future; when we pass through that vestibule where Death stands opening his everlasting gates as widely to the pauper as to the king; when we pass out here into the dim mysteries of the future, to confront, it may be the interrogations of the Eternal-I apprehend every man's responsibility will go with him, and no secondhand opinions will answer for us. Nothing can justify us, nothing can give us confidence, but the conscientious nature of our own conclusions; nothing can give us courage but innocence; nothing can serve our turn but having believed according to the best of our judgment, and having followed those principles which seem to us to be the truth.'

The course of the argument was this:-Mr. Townley appealed to the evidences of design in nature as proving the existence of a designer. This Mr. Holyoake seemed to admit, but pushed the argument ad absurdam, by asking, Who contrived the Contriver? Mr. Townley retorted, You are confounding the inductive and analogical processes; your mind is occupied about experience, which leads to certainty, and not about analogy, of which probability is the result. Mr. Holyoake insisted that nature presents no phenomena which may not be explicable from itself—Mr. Townley, that it is more probable they are the work of an independent intelligence; and that prudence dictates acceptance of the probability. Very impressive is Mr. Holyoake's rejoinder :—

'Now I think that the demoralization of reasoning. I know, on the part of my friend, this is said in the utmost purity-this is said in kindness, to warn us against what he supposes may be a precipice: but I submit, in human affairs we never so act; a man never asks himself, whether it is safe and proper to be a patriot, or to take the side of truth-he only asks, not whether it is prudent, but whether it is his duty to do so-whether it be right and proper. I confess, I believe in this matter we ought to disregard the question of prudence, and cleave closely to the reasons of our conduct, and to the righteousness of our actions.

'I cannot say, with my friend, I am in search of happiness. I think, happiness ought to be a secondary thing. Our first thing is to make sure we are right; the next thing, is to make sure we do our duty. It is our business to walk in the right path, and leave our happiness to take care of itself. Harm can never happen to any who believe only that which seems to be true, who do only that which seems to them to be right, and who walk uprightly among men. Such people do not require prudence; prudence is best answered by that course, and happiness will come in the end.'

My conviction is, that every reader of the Discussion,' however much he may admire the ability and temper with which Mr. Holyoake conducted his side of the controversy, will come to the conclusion that Mr. Townley fairly and logically established the truth of his position. Mr. Holyoake repeatedly, in the course of the discussion, expresses himself as abashed at the presumption of dogmatism on either side of this great question. For my part, I do not say-is the substance of his language-There is no God; I only say, I know of none. The facts to which you point me do not warrant so positive a conclusion as you build upon them. It is but a sublime conjecture which you present, and I cannot consent to repose upon that. The opening path of knowledge may conduct us to God, or to a satis

factory resting-place in nature. Of either result I shall be glad; but I will snatch at neither. I explain nothing '-are his actual words -'I do not explain how matter came to be, nor do I think any man can. Nature no man can fathom-we can only suppose, and all that is given to us is, not to suppose contradiction. Suppose we what we will, we still stand like children on the shores of eternity, who must look forward with wistful and unsatisfactory curiosity; but let the profound sense of our own littleness, which here creeps in upon us, check the dogmatic spirit, and arrest the presumptuous word-we stand in the great presence of Nature, whose inspiration should be that of modesty, humility, and love.'

To the same effect is the preface to the first volume of the 'Reasoner: '

'Locke wrote, a century and a half ago, the objects this periodical essays to realize, in words to this effect:-"Were the capacities of our understandings well considered the extent of our knowledge once discovered-and the horizon found which sets bounds between the enlightened and the dark parts of things-between what is and what is not comprehensible by us-men would acquiesce in leaving the unknown alone, and employing their thoughts and discussions with more advantage and satisfaction on the affairs of this life." This is what the "Reasoner" aims at in Theology. It treats it as a speculation-interesting, but still undetermined—and regards religion as a premature result, as an unfounded practice, as fealty sworn to an unknown king, as the obeyance of dubious and conjectural mandates.'

And in the exposition of the principles of the Society of Theological Utilitarians,' we are told :—

'It is not denied that God exists. It is not said that God cannot exist. The argument is, that the fact is not made out.'

This, no doubt, is Atheism; but it is not so certainly the Atheism on which David fixed the eternal stigma of folly-nor that which John Foster characterised as the portentous heroism' of impiety. It does not sound like the self-congratulation of the coward heart that dares to deny because it fears to believe. It does not look like the last of a series of proud triumphs over religious faith-the premature exultation of guilt that the grand Foe is retiring.' It has the air of dignified submission to a sorrowful necessity-of the intellectual conscientiousness that will not grasp at a conclusion, however inviting, fairly beyond the reach of reason. It is a position which entitles the man who occupies it, to something more respectful than compassion; and renders the imputation of wilful unbelief a dishonour to religion, and an offence against free speech. It is, therefore, with indignant regret -though, from my acquaintance with our religious literature, not with surprise that I have read a notice of this discussion in the Evangelical Magazine,' replete with loose statement and contemptuous bitterness. The reproduction of such notices in the Reasoner,' is infinitely more harmful, in my humble judgment, to the evangelical cause, than the ability and zeal of its editor. The intolerance of Christians is the feather that wings and the steel that arms the arrows that are shot from the temples of free thought' against Christianity itself. You can seldom listen to Mr. Holyoake for an hour, without being reminded that he has suffered six months' imprisonment for the avowal of his

Atheism that Carlile and Hetherington were the martyrs of their free-thinking-that the laws under which their persecution took place are still upon the statute-book-that every now and then some conscientious unbeliever is insulted, and perhaps made to suffer, in a court of justice, for his inability to take an oath-that a Christian suitor can, and sometimes does, nonsuit his infidel opponent by informing against his opinions-that large properties have been perverted from the end to which they were bequeathed, because that end being anti-Christian, was held to be immoral-and at each of these reminiscences the applause will wax louder, and the cries of shame' more fierce. If, as a blushing Dissenter, I venture to remark, that it is the State Church that is responsible for all this-I am confounded by the unanswerable retort -What have you Dissenters done, then, to relieve us from legal disabilities? and do you not sanction them by your social intolerance? Do you not refuse our co-operation in politics-evade, or rudely interrupt, discussion - insinuate that our labours are sordid, our lives licentious, our auditories the depraved and deluded masses?' are Dissenters equally with you-and the liberties you claim for yourWe selves, you cannot withhold from us; but you love us as the Jew loved the Samaritan, as the mediæval Papist loved the Jew.

Yet Atheism is so wretched, so gloomy, so dark a theory, that one can hardly always wonder at the intolerance it excites. difficult thing, to my mind, to see, the most difficult thought for my The most imagination to conceive, is that there is no God.'

I do not wish to represent, however, that Mr. Holyoake's Atheism is exclusively intellectual disability to accept the argument from design; or that he rejects Christianity merely because Christians are intolerant and the Church corrupt. The former explanation his speeches and writings do not permit-the latter, he scornfully denies. In the discussion with Mr. Townley, he takes pains to impress his hearers with the practical gravity of the question before them. In his opening speech he says:—

'Neither of us would take an interest in a controversy on this point, if it were not for the foregone conclusions upon it-that this Being, distinct from nature, is in possession of certain attributes which are of immense consequence to us, if established. It is because there is more mixed up with the question than the mere fact as to whether some Being exists independently of nature; for instance, if any man would debate whether there existed a Divine Being-whether a Providence, who was the father of his creatures, whom we could propitiate by prayer in our danger, from whom we could obtain light in darkness, and help in distress-if any man debated a proposition like this, I should say there was much of great practical utility about it; I presume, the only value of debating it in this form is that afterwards that might come out of it.'

It is impossible to avoid feeling, that it is a foresight of the attributes which would be ascribed to a God, did he admit his existence-a knowledge of the doctrines that would be deduced from the proposition if consented to-that inspires Mr. Holyoake's advocacy of a negation with the ardour of positive belief, and the eloquence of anxiety to persuade. But if this be the case, it is moral cowardice that deters Mr. Holyoake from believing. A slight acquaintance with the history of his mind, will suffice to confirm and account for this impression.

THE TEACHERS OF POPULAR INFIDELITY.

Five years of his life were spent in the Sunday-school of Carr's-lane Chapel, Birmingham. Twice every Sunday, for nearly the whole of that period, he sat beneath the pulpit of the Rev. J. Angell James. The author of the Anxious Inquirer' seems to have poured all the influence of that celebrated book upon the head of his young disciple. An imaginative and sensitive youth was inflamed by presentations of truth that alternately attracted and repelled him-inspired by turns the raptures of adoring love, and an anguish less selfish but not less poignant than despair. Such, at least, is my interpretation, in the light of my own heart-memories, of this terrible fragment of autobiography :

'My youth was sacrificed at the shrine of piety. My days were given to toil and to prayer. After the day's task was done, I was lured into the prayer-meeting. When the seventh day of rest came, I was immured in a Sunday-school, and it brought no rest to me. The should-have-been buoyancy of youth was absorbed by the gloom of religion. Premature cares weighed on my young spirit. Supernatural fears destroyed my peace, and I was degraded by an artificial sense of depravity. I looked on nature not as inherently glorious, but as the unintelligent tool of Godregarded the world only as a sublunary trial-my friends, but as brands of an eternal burning: pleasure was a temptation, joy a crime, and death a horrid foreboding. I knew no cheerfulness, no utility. Now these were with me, as they are at this hour with millions, but the religious additions to the natural calamities of my birth. I was reared in want, and was more familiar with desolation than with the rising sun. With indignation I look back on the direction given to my aims. Instead of being encou

raged to rely upon my own energies, and calculate my own resources, I was sent to the throne of grace, and cruel was the mockery of my petitions. No God ever had a truer suppliant or more devout worshipper, yet those near and dear to me perished unheeded around me.'

ac

I cannot trace the connecting links between this and the next succeeding phase of Mr. Holyoake's career with which I am quainted. I know not whether it was at one leap he emerged from this gulf of darkness mingled with lurid fire, and gained the bold but dreary eminence from which he now looks back with devout thankfulness' on thegins and pitfalls of evangelical religion;' or whether, as is more probable, he fought his way through the tangled thicket of metaphysics to a standing-place in materialism. Surely, the face that was averted in anguish more akin to perplexity than fear, from an Almighty Terror, did not, when uplifted, look at once into a vacant universe, and accept escape instead of victory? Surely, with slow and laborious demonstration the problem was wrought out, and a result contrary to universal belief attained?-When next Mr. Holyoake is met with, it is at the bar of a tribunal which is sentencing him to punishment for his new belief. consecrated apostle of his persecuted faith-for it is a faith that he He emerges from prison the has taken up with. There is a positive side to the negation for which he has suffered and for that positive side he is preparing to work. No longer a believer in God and his providence, in Christ and his salvation, he preaches nature and science, art and morality-nature, the only subject of knowledge; science, the providence of life;" morality, the harmony of action; art, the culture of the individual and of society. Reasoner'-which promises to restrict itself to the known and the In January, 1846, appears the first number of The